|
Post by hchoops on Nov 29, 2021 11:31:08 GMT -5
Thanks for the link. One nit pick When Sluka released the ball there was not double coverage.
|
|
|
Post by hc6774 on Nov 29, 2021 11:38:32 GMT -5
Thanks for the link. One nit pick When Sluka released the ball there was not double coverage. #3 the player who walked off injured after Sluka's 21 yrd run? another view shows him getting there late
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Nov 29, 2021 11:38:48 GMT -5
But if you miss, we have only a 2 point lead. Always harder to get the 2 point PAT than the kick for 1. Then, if Pioneers get close enough, a FG for them wins it rather than a tie and overtime. I think Chesney made the right call though your argument has merit. Edit: Oh, wait. You mean concede no PAT by just taking a knee? Hmmm. I need to think about that more! Perhaps discussed before should the holder have run or eaten the ball? the snap was very high throwing the timing off; Haughney got the ball down & Ng pooched a weak kick over the bar it was an unforced error that could have been a disaster if SHU blocks the PAT & takes it back for 2 I thought the same thing. In theory there was still time for SHU to set up for a FG, especially with a big return. The odds of them getting in position for a FG (for a win if score was 12-10) were probably higher than the possibility of a 2pt PAT run-back (for a tie). Of course, if the doomsday run back DID happen, SHU would've additionally had chance to receive kickoff and go for the win. I think we made the right call.
|
|
|
Post by hc6774 on Nov 29, 2021 11:42:51 GMT -5
Perhaps discussed before should the holder have run or eaten the ball? the snap was very high throwing the timing off; Haughney got the ball down & Ng pooched a weak kick over the bar it was an unforced error that could have been a disaster if SHU blocks the PAT & takes it back for 2 I thought the same thing. In theory there was still time for SHU to set up for a FG, especially with a big return. The odds of them getting in position for a FG (for a win if score was 12-10) were probably higher than the possibility of a 2pt PAT run-back (for a tie). Of course, if the doomsday run back DID happen, SHU would've additionally had chance to receive kickoff and go for the win. I think we made the right call. "he"?
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Nov 29, 2021 11:46:43 GMT -5
Thanks for the link. One nit pick When Sluka released the ball there was not double coverage. #3 the player who walked off injured after Sluka's 21 yrd run? another view shows him getting there late He definitely got there late.
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Nov 29, 2021 12:24:46 GMT -5
Perhaps discussed before should the holder have run or eaten the ball? the snap was very high throwing the timing off; Haughney got the ball down & Ng pooched a weak kick over the bar it was an unforced error that could have been a disaster if SHU blocks the PAT & takes it back for 2 I thought the same thing. In theory there was still time for SHU to set up for a FG, especially with a big return. The odds of them getting in position for a FG (for a win if score was 12-10) were probably higher than the possibility of a 2pt PAT run-back (for a tie). Of course, if the doomsday run back DID happen, SHU would've additionally had chance to receive kickoff and go for the win. I think we made the right call. Another scenario I thought of. SHU had it on the 25 after the kickoff. I'd instruct my guys to not worry in the least about interfering on a long pass from there. They get the ball at their own 40 and the time taken to throw the pass is not put back on the clock. A flaw in the NCAA rules in my opinion; don't necessarily mind that pass interference is 15 yards at most; but do mind that something egregious doesn't get penalized more. In soccer, they'd call it a professional foul.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Nov 29, 2021 14:28:56 GMT -5
If you recall, some here thought that our receivers and DBs were too short against opponents and had a hard time getting those “jump balls.
Coker is listed as 6’3” and I looked at the two defenders for Sacred Heart and they are listed as 6’ and 5’10”. Good to be on the other end of those jump balls.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Nov 29, 2021 14:31:05 GMT -5
Going back and forth with a former New England college football official. Here's what he had to say regarding the non-targeting call --
For what it’s worth – I retired off the field in 2013 – I think they got it right. The QB at that point is a runner who is still making every effort to advance the ball (not sliding or trying to go down). The defender, although there is helmet to helmet contact, also brought his arms up to assist in the tackle, which in my view underscores that he was not trying to target or punish the runner, rather just complete the tackle without the runner gaining any more yardage.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Nov 29, 2021 14:39:09 GMT -5
What the defender was “trying to do” seems totally opinion and less relevant than what he actually did. Helmet to helmet.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Nov 29, 2021 14:40:25 GMT -5
If you recall, some here thought that our receivers and DBs were too short against opponents and had a hard time getting those “jump balls. Coker is listed as 6’3” and I looked at the two defenders for Sacred Heart and they are listed as 6’ and 5’10”. Good to be on the other end of those jump balls. In the post game interview, Sluka said that Coker’s nickname was “ Jump ball Jalen”.
|
|
ignatius
Crusader Century Club
Posts: 122
|
Post by ignatius on Nov 29, 2021 14:41:51 GMT -5
Without the benefit of reading each and every preceding comment, I will say that I was surprised at how consistently SHU stacked the box over the course of the game. They clearly were not concerned with our deep passing attack, which they committed to at their own peril. On “the play” It appeared to me that the safety was leaning toward Justin Shorter, and then reversed course to assist the cornerback, who was beat when the ball was released. I was at the game and kept thinking there was an opportunity for a deep throw given the alignments of the SHU safeties. Needless to say, we called the right play at the right time, so kudos to Coach Roper.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Nov 29, 2021 14:55:01 GMT -5
Two of the targeting rule "indicators" which seem to apply, imo
Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Nov 29, 2021 15:05:14 GMT -5
Admittedly I am no expert but I've seen enough "targeting" calls with helmet to helmet contact that were obviously not intentional but the result was simply helmet to helmet and was called. The difference was ejection if intentional. And what's this distinction that Sluka was a runner? Since when was only passers being the only potential victims of targeting as seemed to be implied above?
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Nov 29, 2021 15:33:25 GMT -5
Could we compare it to face mask penalties? Does an official ever conclude "I saw the player grab the other guy's face mask but I don't think it was intentional so no penalty"??
|
|
|
Post by hc6774 on Nov 30, 2021 7:52:57 GMT -5
Two of the targeting rule "indicators" which seem to apply, imo Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet This NBC Sports' 2021 analysis of 'targeting' I added the underlining The 2019 NCAA Rule Book defines targeting as when a player "takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or legal block or playing the ball."
The NCAA targeting rule bans any forcible contact leading with the crown of the helmet or to the head or neck area of a defenseless player.
It appears to give the refs some discretion. At the game, I was puzzled when the ref stopped the clock & announced that the play was under review for targeting & that "the call on the field was no targeting". Despite whatever video the reviewing official looked at s/he would not over turn the call on the field. Perhaps the underlined language played a role in this decision. Based on the video I think it was targeting. During the game I thought HC benefited from 2 no calls by the refs in the second half.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Nov 30, 2021 8:04:52 GMT -5
The "best" no call was running into the kicker on the SHU punt. The HC player was lying on the ground and not moving. The kicker stepped into him after the kick and fell over him (poor acting IMO). A penalty there and the outcome could well have been different.
Also, don't overlook the catch on the sidelines by Ayeni. (The announcer said it was his first of the game.(IIIRC, it got HC a first down and set up the TD throw.) As tales grow and develop from that last drive, I hope he does not get lost in the shuffle.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Nov 30, 2021 8:36:58 GMT -5
There is a major difference between the correct no calls that benefitted us and the no target on Matt S. The call of Targeting is to protect players from serious head and neck injuries. To ignore that put Sluka in danger of having to leave the game, or even end his season or career with a serious concussion. Fortunately it did not. It was an Indefensible no call.
|
|
|
Post by purplehaze on Nov 30, 2021 8:43:15 GMT -5
We were living dangerously Saturday- one could point to a number of plays that had to go our way and if just one did not, we would have lost - good teams find a way and we did, thankfully
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Nov 30, 2021 12:30:36 GMT -5
We were living dangerously Saturday- one could point to a number of plays that had to go our way and if just one did not, we would have lost - good teams find a way and we did, thankfully If you think about it, they had a scramble that turned into a long pass completion; followed by a 20 yard or so run by Chestnut; and a nice RPO run by the backup qb that set up the field goal in the second half. That's about it. However, they came awful close to stringing enough short gains together to run out the clock, which would have been most frustrating.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Nov 30, 2021 12:35:12 GMT -5
Gracious in victory & defeat.
|
|
|
Post by bfoley82 on Nov 30, 2021 12:58:13 GMT -5
Could we compare it to face mask penalties? Does an official ever conclude "I saw the player grab the other guy's face mask but I don't think it was intentional so no penalty"?? You don't have to grab the face mask for a penalty. It is ANY opening of the helmet and it is a facemask penalty. I seen it called for pulling the back of the helmet.
|
|